Top Law Schools

Is such a background more beneficial to them?

Clients like it, and yes, it makes the work easier when you know some of the basic terminology/thought process.

ETA: Scooped by someone more knowledgeable than me.

Patent litigators tend to have technical backgrounds because firms prefer to hire people with technical backgrounds (patent prosecutors need to be pass the patent bar which tends to be satisfied by a technical degree).

I think (though could be wrong) that this is mainly for 2 reasons: (1) they think people with technical backgrounds can more readily understand patents, especially if the patent is in the same field as the degree, and (2) it allows them to market the firm and its lawyers to their potential clients as being "good" at patent cases because their lawyers have technical degrees.

There is synergy between IP and both the arts and sports, as well; so be careful with the assumptions.

While it is true that most IP lawyers are probably dealing with patents within such industries as info-tech, automobile, aerospace, etc., they also deal with copyrights in the entertainment and sports industries - where a general understanding of the field itself is more helpful than understanding technology alone.

An IP lawyer protects scripts, recordings, books, fashion designs, stadium designs and ads, and even the technologies that are specific to sports and entertainment.

I know this is more specific to Patent and not IP as a whole, but you also need to have a science background to sit for the patent bar or at least have taken a minimum amount of science classes.

Just go to google.com/patents and look around, a lot of the patents are pretty technical and you want the lawyer to be able to convey the idea clearly to make sure the concept is patent-able.

PDaddy wrote:An IP lawyer protects scripts, recordings, books, fashion designs, stadium designs and ads, and even the technologies that are specific to sports and entertainment.

The IP lawyers who do this kind of stuff are HYS top 10% people. The vast majority of us never see this kind of work. Also, some of these things are not protected by any IP laws, including at least fashion designs.

vtoodler wrote:Is such a background more beneficial to them?

I don't think anyone's really answered your question. There's one answer -- yes, because clients like it. And another -- yes, because you can pass the patent bar. But the answer for patent litigation, at least, is because having a background in the technology (or at least not being scared of technical subjects) is valuable. You need to work with experts and talk with engineers all the time. You might see a non-infringement argument someone else doesn't because you know how things operate. And when you actually understand things (instead of pretending to understand), you can convey arguments to a jury better. These things make an impact on the bottom line in litigation. So beyond the patent bar and beyond the whole "clients like it" there's actual tangible benefit to it.

Caveat: All of the above is more applicable to patent litigation. Less applicable to trademarks or trade secrets or other types of IP lit.